leszkoss
Junior Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Polish
- Home Country
- Poland
- Current Location
- UK
I kindly ask the learned teachers on this forum to evaluate this essay and correct any mistakes and suggest any improvements to my writing. Don't worry, it has already been submitted, so the corrections that I am requesting will be post factum.
Hard power versus naivety and delusion. Whose agenda will prevail in the 21st century?
The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the role of international courts and tribunals in The Hague and their prospective influence that the existence of these institutions may have on international order and their ability to promote and facilitate peace and stability in the world. This essay also aims to evaluate the effectiveness of these courts and questions their relevance and effectiveness in enforcing rulings made by these courts. I will make particular reference to the recent case of Philippines v. China heard by the Permanent Court of Arbitration based at Hague.
To question the effectiveness of international courts and tribunals in The Hague, I will refer to the fairly recent dispute between Philippines and China, an arbitration case heard by Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration. Even though the court decided in Philippines’ favour on most questions, Chinese authorities blatantly rejected the ruling1. The Chinese president Xi Jinping stated that “China’s ‘territorial sovereignty and marine rights’ in the seas will not be affected”2. According to the Guardian’s article, Xi Jinping, insisted China was still “committed to resolving disputes” with its neighbours. So China arbitrarily decided not to comply with the judgment and continue its expansion in the sea. This case demonstrates that in cases when there is a massive disproportion between the parties concerned in terms of their economic, military or generally political status, the stronger state can ignore the court’s ruling if it is contrary to their geopolitical strategy or simply because the international courts have no means to enforce their rulings.
I am inclined to say that the sheer existence of such courts and tribunals and their increased significance, does not in fact offer any measure of safety and security, especially for so-called minor states or vulnerable countries. The existence of the court and its powers are meaningless when faced with hard-power politics exercised by means of military aggression, as in the case of Russian invasion in Georgia and Ukraine. The security of small and weak states like the Baltic nations depends on their membership in the structures of NATO, the backbone of which is the USA and its military power. In a case of an open aggression or hostile military operations similar to those that took place in Ukraine, the idea that the states of Latvia or Estonia would turn to any international court or tribunal seeking ‘protection’ would appear to be a desperate ‘cry for help’, but could not provide any measures that could effectively divert the course of action. The Baltic states appear to be protected because they are signatories to NATO, and their capability to protect their sovereignty and their borders depends on the political will of the Alliance’s key member, the Unites States and its military might.
The development of the system of international courts and tribunals seems to be the continuation realisation of the utopian and tentative aspirations underlying the Hague ‘Peace Conferences’, where ‘it all began’, as articulated by historian Arthur Eyffinger3. So far, as far as I have gathered from the lectures, the ICJ provided rulings in cases of relatively minor importance like the dispute over whaling. I am of the opinion that the role of international courts and tribunals in The Hague will remain illusory and rather ornamental.
1. http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/inte...-philippines-v-china-case-on-south-china-sea/
2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-against-china
3. Arthur Eyffinger, A Highly Critical Moment: Role and Record of the 1907 Hague Peace Conference. Netherlands International Law Review, 54, p 198
Hard power versus naivety and delusion. Whose agenda will prevail in the 21st century?
The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the role of international courts and tribunals in The Hague and their prospective influence that the existence of these institutions may have on international order and their ability to promote and facilitate peace and stability in the world. This essay also aims to evaluate the effectiveness of these courts and questions their relevance and effectiveness in enforcing rulings made by these courts. I will make particular reference to the recent case of Philippines v. China heard by the Permanent Court of Arbitration based at Hague.
To question the effectiveness of international courts and tribunals in The Hague, I will refer to the fairly recent dispute between Philippines and China, an arbitration case heard by Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration. Even though the court decided in Philippines’ favour on most questions, Chinese authorities blatantly rejected the ruling1. The Chinese president Xi Jinping stated that “China’s ‘territorial sovereignty and marine rights’ in the seas will not be affected”2. According to the Guardian’s article, Xi Jinping, insisted China was still “committed to resolving disputes” with its neighbours. So China arbitrarily decided not to comply with the judgment and continue its expansion in the sea. This case demonstrates that in cases when there is a massive disproportion between the parties concerned in terms of their economic, military or generally political status, the stronger state can ignore the court’s ruling if it is contrary to their geopolitical strategy or simply because the international courts have no means to enforce their rulings.
I am inclined to say that the sheer existence of such courts and tribunals and their increased significance, does not in fact offer any measure of safety and security, especially for so-called minor states or vulnerable countries. The existence of the court and its powers are meaningless when faced with hard-power politics exercised by means of military aggression, as in the case of Russian invasion in Georgia and Ukraine. The security of small and weak states like the Baltic nations depends on their membership in the structures of NATO, the backbone of which is the USA and its military power. In a case of an open aggression or hostile military operations similar to those that took place in Ukraine, the idea that the states of Latvia or Estonia would turn to any international court or tribunal seeking ‘protection’ would appear to be a desperate ‘cry for help’, but could not provide any measures that could effectively divert the course of action. The Baltic states appear to be protected because they are signatories to NATO, and their capability to protect their sovereignty and their borders depends on the political will of the Alliance’s key member, the Unites States and its military might.
The development of the system of international courts and tribunals seems to be the continuation realisation of the utopian and tentative aspirations underlying the Hague ‘Peace Conferences’, where ‘it all began’, as articulated by historian Arthur Eyffinger3. So far, as far as I have gathered from the lectures, the ICJ provided rulings in cases of relatively minor importance like the dispute over whaling. I am of the opinion that the role of international courts and tribunals in The Hague will remain illusory and rather ornamental.
1. http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/inte...-philippines-v-china-case-on-south-china-sea/
2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-against-china
3. Arthur Eyffinger, A Highly Critical Moment: Role and Record of the 1907 Hague Peace Conference. Netherlands International Law Review, 54, p 198
Last edited by a moderator:
